UKLA Content Development


Published on

Presented by Adam Rusbridge at the UK LOCKSS Alliance Members’ Meeting: 10th May 2011, National Railway Museum, York.

Published in: Education, Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

UKLA Content Development

  1. 1. UK LOCKSS Alliance: Content Development Adam Rusbridge ( [email_address] ) EDINA, University of Edinburgh 10 th May 2011
  2. 2. Content Development: Session Agenda <ul><li>NESLi2 and NESLi2-SMP Survey </li></ul><ul><li>PEPRS </li></ul><ul><li>Open Access Content </li></ul><ul><li>Challenge of Content Testing </li></ul><ul><li>Discussion </li></ul>
  3. 3. UK LOCKSS Alliance <ul><li>The UK LOCKSS Alliance is a co-operative organization whose goal is to ensure continuing access to scholarly work in ways that are sustainable over the long term . </li></ul><ul><li>Intention is to help UK institutions ensure coherent coverage </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Preserve at-risk content in LOCKSS </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Coordinate library demands to give JISC Collections greater negotiating leverage with publishers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How comprehensive should LOCKSS collections be? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Is it satisfactory if there are alternative preservation and post-cancellation access sources? </li></ul></ul>
  4. 4. NESLi2 and NESLi2-SMP Survey <ul><li>Limited resources available for content development </li></ul><ul><ul><li>To date, UKLA Support has not catered for negotiation. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(technical support, programme coordination, software development & content testing) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Negotiating support was offered by JISC Collections at UKLA Steering Committee meeting in 2010 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Requested that publisher demand was assessed </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Coordinated demands gives JISC Collections greater negotiating leverage with publishers </li></ul></ul><ul><li>NESLi2 and NESLi2-SMP Publishers were included </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Although focus is on NESLi2-SMP Publishers </li></ul></ul>
  5. 5. NESLi2 and NESLi2-SMP Survey <ul><li>University of Birmingham </li></ul><ul><li>De Montfort University </li></ul><ul><li>Durham University </li></ul><ul><li>The University of Edinburgh </li></ul><ul><li>University of Glasgow </li></ul><ul><li>University of Hertfordshire </li></ul><ul><li>University of Huddersfield </li></ul><ul><li>King's College London </li></ul><ul><li>London School of Economics </li></ul><ul><li>Newcastle University </li></ul><ul><li>University of Oxford </li></ul><ul><li>Open University </li></ul><ul><li>Royal Holloway </li></ul><ul><li>University of Salford </li></ul><ul><li>University of St Andrews </li></ul><ul><li>University of Sussex </li></ul><ul><li>University of Warwick </li></ul><ul><li>University of York </li></ul>Responses received from 18 institutions
  6. 6. NESLi2 Publishers
  7. 7. NESLi2-SMP Publishers
  8. 8. What happens next <ul><li>Key publishers: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Walter de Gruyter </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Brill </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Professional Engineering Publishing: now SAGE </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Thus PEP are now participating in LOCKSS </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>JISC Collections to discuss at Licensing Strategy Group Meeting </li></ul><ul><ul><li>NESLi2 publishers may present more difficult challenge, but sustained pressure will help </li></ul></ul><ul><li>UK LOCKSS Alliance should develop Collection Development Policy </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Rules for determining the content ‘in scope’ </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>‘ Risk register’ to help prioritisation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Development work to preserve content </li></ul></ul>
  9. 9. PEPRS: Piloting an E-Journal Preservation Registry Service <ul><li>Who is doing what, and how do we know? </li></ul><ul><li>PEPRS provides easily accessible information about inclusion of journals in preservation services </li></ul><ul><li>Highlights those e-journals for which no arrangements exist. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>PEPRS is a monitoring tool for archival action </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Beta Release launched end of April 2011 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>With information from: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Portico, CLOCKSS Archive, Global LOCKSS Network, KB e-Depot, British Library </li></ul></ul>
  10. 10. Original work that led to PEPRS <ul><li>Rightscom / Loughborough University, 2007 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Confirmed expressed need among libraries and policy makers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Warned of potential burden on digital preservation agencies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>PEPRS has been developed in accordance with the recommendations of that report </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>an e-journals preservation registry should be built </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>UK Union Catalogue of Serials (SUNCAT) or SHERPA (Open Access) get involved </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>SUNCAT is hosted and managed at EDINA </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  11. 11. PEPRS Project Details <ul><li>Funded by JISC (Preservation Programme) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Phase 1 from August 2008 – July 2010 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Phase 2 from August 2010 – July 2012 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Project Partners </li></ul><ul><ul><li>EDINA, University of Edinburgh </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>ISSN International Centre, Paris </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Evaluation carried out by Charles Beagrie Limited for the JISC in February 2010 </li></ul>
  12. 12. PEPRS Demo <ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li>De Gruyter </li></ul><ul><li>Brill </li></ul><ul><li>IOS Press </li></ul><ul><ul><li>What do we in UKLA regard as ‘at-risk’? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Use PEPRS to identify gaps in coverage </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Extract from PEPRS the set of publishers not participating in any initiative </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Highlight ‘Open Access’ conditions in PEPRS? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>E-Depot progress with DOAJ content </li></ul><ul><ul><li>International Journal of Poultry Science </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Biology of Exercise </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Choregia </li></ul></ul>
  13. 13. PEPRS: Example of Search Results
  14. 14. PEPRS: Example of Title-Level Detail
  15. 15. Open Access Content <ul><li>DOAJ and KB Pilot Project announced in 2009 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Pilot to establish workflow to preserve open access journals listed with DOAJ </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Sample of OA journals preserved in e-Depot </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Long term archiving of DOAJ journals to become an integral part of DOAJ service </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>DOAJ negotiates inclusion in e-Depot with OA publishers (Publisher was to ‘opt-out’) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>KB receive the content and normalised metadata from DOAJ </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>DOAJ content archived in the e-Depot will be available online under an OA licence via the KB catalogue </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Initial inspection in PEPRS, does not seem as though comprehensive preservation occurred </li></ul></ul>
  16. 16. Challenge of Content Testing in LOCKSS <ul><li>Each ‘publishing platform’ needs a unique plugin </li></ul><ul><ul><li>EmeraldInsight plugin </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Open Journal System plugin </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>DrogoResearch plugin </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Small OA publishers need individual attention </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Test process is being redeveloped during 2011 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Operate with new Linux platform </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Simplify process to translate into more complete content ranges, with greater title coverage </li></ul></ul><ul><li>May need to communicate more about release schedule </li></ul><ul><ul><li>What content is ‘in progress’ </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Hard as publishing platforms and priorities change </li></ul></ul>
  17. 17. Discussion Points <ul><li>How can PEPRS support UK LOCKSS Alliance activities? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>To identify ‘at-risk’ content? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What other functionality do you wish to see in place? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>How can we make better use of resources to negotiate more content? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Need to see follow through from the survey. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>How can the UKLA better support UK community priorities? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>More frequent surveys to identify content? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>ie. For open access content? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How do you think we can improve the content development process? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What do you think is missing? </li></ul></ul>